New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (15669 previous messages)

wrcooper - 10:53am Oct 26, 2003 EST (# 15670 of 15672)

In re: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.6kLpbb9iSUK.4929423@.f28e622/17368

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/17369

You wrote:

...is perhaps a separate issue from purely technical analysis which you unsuccessfully conflate with the words "In other words.."

Yes, it is a separate issue. What I have been seeking to understand, and you have yet to comment upon, is why you believe that the NMD program is field ready and should be deployed in 2004, as the Bush administration proposes. You haven't provided any rebuttal of the basic objections I've presented; you've only stated that you trust the government and you don't like the political pedigree of the people who have criticized the program.

I have presented a number of arguments that attack the basic logic of the NMD program. You've neer rebutted any of those arguments. For instance, I have stated that a fundamental logical fault in the NMD program--which has been touted as a defense against a limited strike by a rogue nation, a terrorist group, or an accidental launch--is that the more successful it is, the more incentive such an adversary would have to use low-tech means of delivery, such as a container ship or burro or motorboat or diplomatic pouch or whatever. You haven't addressed that.

I understand that you believe that missile defense is a good idea; it makes common sense to you. That's fine. But what makes you think that this particular system is ready to deploy and is technologically sound and can accomplish its mission?

I would trust someone who didn't tell me they were "concerned" about anything in particular...so no "Unions of Concerned Scientists"....or "Legions of Pacifist Hamsters".....one could only presume that somewhere in the USA is a scientist or five (sometimes I trust what John Pike says, sometimes I don't) who is impartial and knows lots about MD. Then, I'd give him/her a listen and see what I think....

You don't trust the UCS because the organization has the word "concerned" in its name?

I am left to conclude that you don't have any authoriotative sources to present to us. I conclude that, because given an opportunity to list them, you didn't. My point in asking was that, supposing you had listed the Missile Defense Agency (http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/mission.html), you could hardly claim that the government agency in control of the project was unbiassed. Or supposing you selected the American Foreign Policy Council (http://www.afpc.org/) that publishes the Missile Defense Briefing Report, a publication highly supportive of the NMD program and missile defense in general; that group is a right-wing think tank and the report's editor, Ilan Berman, publishes in the National Review.

My point is that any individual or group has a particular background and political leaning, a bias, if you will. In science, however, the influence of such attachments is counterbalanced by objective evidence and testable hypotheses which can be publicly debated and vetted. The UCS has made a series of specific charges against the NMD technology, which the Missile Defense Command and its supports have not adequately answered. You, in this forum, have not answered them.

That's what I'm looking for from you. Do you have any source that specifically rebuts the technological criticisms of the NMB program--for instance the countermeasures criticism--that the UCS and others , such as retired military figures and leading US politicians have made?

More Messages Recent Messages (2 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense